Arun Bhansali, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against order dated 28.01.1987 passed by S.D.O., Rajgarh (Churu) ('SDO'), whereby, the issue Nos. 8 and 9 framed in the suit have been decided against the petitioners and judgment dated 15.11.1994 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer ('Board'), whereby, the revision filed by the petitioners against order dated 28.01.1987 has been rejected.
(2.) THE present litigation has got a chequered history, inasmuch as, the first suit between the parties was filed in the year 1955 and ever since the parties through generations are in litigation; the dispute in the present suit pertains to the property of one Tej Singh, who died issueless; the dispute is among the sons of Ganga Singh - brother of said Tej Singh; while Pabudan Singh and Birju Singh are on the one side, the legal representatives of third brother Sheobux Singh are on the other side; the property in dispute is a land situated in village Niyagli; in the present suit No. 26/1984 filed by Pabudan Singh and others, on objection raised in the written statement, the SDO framed two preliminary issues, which read as under: - After hearing the parties, the SDO came to the conclusion that the Explanation -IV to Section 11 CPC applies to a case where Section 11 applies, when Section 11 itself is not applicable, Explanation -IV does not apply; the defendants have failed to prove that the suit was barred under Order II, Rule 2 CPC and decided issue No. 8 against the defendants -petitioners; on issue No. 9 based on the contention raised in the written statement, the SDO came to the conclusion that the suit was maintainable.
(3.) IN the revision petition, the Board came to the conclusion that the previous suit of the present suit was founded on different cause of action and, therefore, was not barred by res judicata and, consequently, dismissed the revision petition; whereafter, review petition was also filed by the petitioners, which was also rejected by order dated 03.04.1997.;